Evaluation of the Malting and Brewing Performance of the New Malting Variety CDC Meredith

Transcription

1 Evaluation of the Malting and Brewing Performance of the New Malting Variety CDC Summary Malting Performance Malting timing Normal Water uptake Faster than AC Metcalfe Modification Normal Malt Quality Friability Very high Extract yield Higher Enzymes Moderate Soluble protein & FAN Slightly higher than average Color Higher than average Brewing Performance Extraction/Lautering - Normal timing Extraction/Lautering - Normal efficiency Wort Clarity Normal Beer Quality Fermentability Very high Foam Stability Higher Physical Stability Normal Colour Higher

2 Micro-malting, pilot malting and pilot brewing trials were conducted at the CMBTC with samples of CDC collected from harvest. Malting barley samples were malted at the CMBTC, Rahr Malting in Alix Alberta and at Prairie Malting at Biggar Saskatchewan. The objectives of this study were to examine CDC s malting and brewing performances against the well established malting varieties, CDC Copeland and AC Metcalfe and to generate addition quality information for marketing this new barley variety. Barley test results at CMBTC lab indicated that the test samples of CDC were in sound condition and showed no noticeable mould infection/ or weathering. In addition, they all had acceptable protein content, excellent 1000-kernel weight and good plumpness. All of the barley samples showed good germination energy, although all exhibited some degree of water sensitivity. In comparison with 2008 CDC, the CDC samples showed significantly lower grain protein content, slightly higher germination energy, slightly higher water sensitivity, similar 1000 kernel weight and slightly lower plumpness. In the malting trials, CDC barley samples did not show any abnormalities during processing. They showed good water uptake and good chitting at steep. During germination they showed good acrospire growth and good modification progress. Except for high beta-glucan content in some of the trial malts, CDC barley samples produced malts with good quality in general. The malts showed excellent values of friability and extract yield, good soluble protein and very good enzymes. The overall malt quality for CDC was comparable to AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland malts. It was observed that CDC takes up water faster than AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland, and has a tendency to give higher levels of soluble protein. In the brewing trials, CDC recorded a longer average conversion time than both AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland although the CDC had a significantly shorter conversion time than the 2008 CDC. Average conversion time of CDC was comparable to the average of CDC Copeland. Time for wort to clear to less than 100 FTU in lautering was good and was comparable to the average of CDC Copeland, and was slightly longer than the average for AC Metcalfe. Average lautering time for CDC was slightly shorter than both CDC Copeland and AC Metcalfe averages. Average Malt Material Yield for CDC was also good, higher than the AC Metcalfe control average but lower than CDC Copeland average. Wort clarity and break in the wort kettle was within specification, comparable to the controls. CDC from crop year had a wort colour higher than both the AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland average. However, 2008 CDC wort colour was lower than both the AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland averages. The wort ph values were typical for the CDC wort sample, on the higher end of the acceptable range, and comparable to both CDC Copeland and AC Metcalfe control samples. Wort taste was acceptable.

3 A normal wort sugar spectrum was recorded for CDC, comparable to the controls. CDC had slightly higher levels of Maltotriose and Maltose than the averages of CDC Copeland and AC Metcalfe. In the lauter tun normal operating conditions were recorded for CDC. Runoff turbidity for CDC was within the normal range for Canadian two-rowed malts. Clarity below 100 FTU was obtained in a normal time of 10 minutes. The Wort clarity curve recorded was normal. Runoff specific gravity profiles as well as Runoff lautertun flowmeter profiles for CDC were within normal tolerance for Canadian two-row malt, and comparable to the control AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland samples. The average fermentability of the worts produced from CDC was higher than either of the controls. CDC produced beers with good quality. Beers produced from CDC offered slightly higher foam values compared to the controls. Alcohol and apparent extract were good and comparable or higher than AC Metcalfe and the CDC Copeland controls. The initial and chill turbidity for CDC produced beers were good, although higher than the controls, indicating good physical and colloidal stability. In terms of sensory, CDC beer received somewhat higher marks than the control AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland, and was rated as a normal good beer with no defects and some good characteristics. CDC had a very good appearance with yellow-golden colour, clear, clean and good foam. In order to realize the quality potential of these new barley varieties included in this study some further malting trials are needed to develop optimal processing conditions. Since the results reported here are based on a limited number of trials, so the results should be viewed with caution. Additional future work needs to be done with these new varieties as more barley sample is made available.

4 Introduction In order to collect additional technical data for supporting the market development activities of CDC barley, some malting and brewing trials were conducted at CMBTC with CDC barley samples. These barley samples were provided to CMBTC by Richardson International, Rahr Malting and SeCan, respectively. Richardson International provided some large barley samples adequate for carrying out pilot trials, and Rahr Malting and SeCan provided some small samples adequate only for conducting micro-malting trials. Rahr Malting and Prairie Malting also provided finished malt suitable for Pilot brewing trials (although from a commercial source it must be remembered that these too were trial malting). The objectives of this study were to examine the malting and brewing performance of this newly developed variety against the well established Canadian two-rowed varieties CDC Copeland and AC Metcalfe, and confirm the test results generated from the malting and brewing trials with 2008 CDC barley samples. In this study, we micro-malted all of the CDC samples received from Rahr and SeCan using a Phoenix micro-malting system against the control AC Metcalfe barley. In the pilot malting trials we examined three CDC barley samples provided by Richardson International. After pilot-malting trials, corresponding brewing trials were conducted at CMBTC s brewing lab with the malts generated from the pilot malting trials. Then the results of malting and brewing trials were compared with the malting and brewing results of the shipment samples CDC Copeland and AC Metcalfe. Brewing trials were also conducted at the CMBTC on commercially produced malt from CDC at Rahr Malting and Prairie Malting.

5 1. Barley Quality Analysis When barley samples arrived at CMBTC, the quality of the barley samples were examined immediately, and the test results are given in Table 1. Please note that except for the germination testing all the test results reported in Table 1 were generated from a single test. Table 1. Quality evaluation of the samples of CDC Germination Sizing, %,% Barley ID supplier Moisture, % Protein, % crop 1000 (4ml) (8ml) Kernel >6/64 wt, g sieve >5/64 sieve RVA B Richardson Sept 23, B Richardson Oct 30, B Richardson Oct 30, B Richardson June 3, B Rahr Sept 28, SeCan B /Parkland Nov. 27, B SeCan Nov. 27, B SeCan /Lindholm Nov. 27, Mean Std Mean (n=12) 2008 crop U of S, SeCan/CWB Std General 100 to 135 RVA Interpretation < 100 RVA units > 135 RVA units units of RVA Comments Pre-germinated 95% probability to lose GE after storage Moderate Pregermination 75% probability to lose GE after storage Sound 99% probability to retain GE after storage

6 General comments on barley quality All CDC samples appeared in sound condition and showed no noticeable mould infection/ or weathering. Except for one sample (B ), all of the CDC barley samples listed in Table 1 recorded acceptable levels of moisture content. All of the samples recorded acceptable protein content and excellent kernel weight. Their germination energy ranged from good to excellent, and all showed some degree of water sensitivity, except for one sample (B ). In comparison with 2008 crop, the CDC samples showed significantly lower grain protein content, slightly higher germination energy, slightly higher water sensitivity, similar 1000 kernel weight and slightly lower plumpness. The samples on which RVA testing was conducted suggested that these barley samples did not experience any noticeable preharvest sprouting damage. 2. Micro-malting Trials Prior to the pilot malting trials, micro-malting trials were conducted with the barley samples. One control AC Metcalfe sample was included in the trials. The trials were processed in the GRL s Phoenix micro-malting system with a sample size for each of these barley samples of 500g (d.b.) without duplication. The malting conditions used in these trials are given in Box 1. Box 1. Processing conditions for the micro-malting trials Steeping: 45 hours {8hrs Wet-18 hrs Dry-10hrs Wet-12 hrs 13 C Germination: Day 16 C, day 15 C, day 15 C, day 15 C Kilning conditions: 12 hr@55ºc; 6hr@65ºC;2hr@75ºC and 4 hr@85ºc Please note that the trial malting conditions were generic (i.e. were not optimized for CDC ), and were those generally chosen for examining newly harvest crop samples. In the trials, all of the barley samples were steeped with two-wet periods and during germination no water was applied to the green malts to adjust their moisture contents. The steep-out moisture contents and chitting rates at the end of steep and

7 acrospire growth profiles at the end of germination were recorded and are given in Table 2. Table 2. Steep-out water content, chitting rate and profiles of acrospire growth at the end of germination At 96 hours Barley ID Malting ID Trial ID Cast moisture,% Chitting, % 0-1/4 CDC ¼- 1/2 ½- 3/4 ¾-1 >1 B mm cmbtc B mm cmbtc B mm cmbtc B mm cmbtc Mean Std B mm B mm Control Metcalfe /cmbtc09-22 Control Metcalfe /cmbtc09-41 AC Metcalfe Mean CDC Mean (n=10) Std AC Metcalfe Mean (n=5) Water uptake, chitting and acrospire growth Under the given trial malting conditions, at the end of steep, all of the CDC barley samples obtained satisfactory steep-out moisture and good chitting rates (Table 2). During germination, all barley samples showed good acrospire growth, but showed significant differences in acrospire growth between the samples. In general CDC s water uptake, chitting rate and growth were comparable to the control AC Metcalfe; however, CDC showed faster water uptake and more advanced acrospire growth (Table 2). This agreed well with the trial results of the 2008

8 CDC barley samples, which also showed faster water uptake and more advanced acrospire growth than the control AC Metcalfe (Table 2). A complete malt analysis was conducted for the malts generated from the micro-malting trials, and the analytical results are reported in Table 3. Please note that in the trials no major processing difficulties were experienced and all the produced malts showed acceptable modification. However, it is noteworthy to point out that there were some significant differences in malt quality between the barley samples. Table 3. Analysis of the malts generated from the micro-malting trials for CDC. Analysis for 2008 CDC trial malts are included in the table for general comparison. Trial ID# Moist. % Friability,%. Fine Extract, % F/C Diff. % Soluble Protein,% Malt Protein,% S/T Ratio,% ß-Glucan, ppm CDC Viscosity, cps Diastatic Power, L Alpha- Amylase, D.U. Wort color, asbc B B B B Mean Std AC Metcalfe B B Mean CDC Mean (n=1) Std AC Metcalfe Mean (n=5) General modification: The results in Table 3 indicated that there were significant differences in malt quality among these four CDC samples (Table 3). For CDC sample B , the values for friability, F/C difference and soluble protein content and beta-glucan content suggested that this barley sample produced malt with good modification; while for samples B , B and B the FAN, ppm

9 lower friability and elevated beta-glucan content suggested that the malts generated from these three CDC barley sample were under-modified, although other quality parameters were satisfactory. Extract yield and enzyme levels: All the malts produced from CDC barley exhibited very good extract yield and very good levels of enzymes (Table 3). On average the extract yield was slightly higher than the control AC Metcalfe, in contrast to 2008 CDC trial malts, which showed extract yield slightly lower than the control AC Metcalfe. The diastatic power and alpha-amylase levels were very high and both were significantly higher than the control AC Metcalfe. This agreed well with the trial results of 2008 CDC samples (Table 3) CDC barley showed higher diastatic power and a similar alpha-amylase level. Soluble protein, FAN and malt colour: CDC malts showed good soluble protein content, good levels of FAN and malt color. On average the soluble protein content and malt color were higher than the control AC Metcalfe, while the FAN level was similar to the control (Table 3). This confirmed the trial results of 2008 CDC samples. Beta-glucan content and wort viscosity: The malt of one of the CDC samples, B , showed beta-glucan content lower than the control AC Metcalfe and the other three samples shower higher malt beta-glucan content than the control. On average, CDC showed higher malt beta-glucan content than the control AC Metcalfe (Table 3), again confirming the trial results with 2008 CDC (Table 3). Wort viscosity for three of the CDC malt samples was within the levels required by the breweries (normally expecting viscosity less than 1.50 cps) and was comparable to the control AC Metcalfe, but one sample showed marginally higher levels than that required by the breweries. In general, this agreed with that observed with 2008 CDC malt, Overall performance and malt quality: In the micro-malting trials the CDC barley samples did not show any abnormalities during processing. They showed good water uptake and good chitting at steep. During germination they showed good acrospire growth and good modification advancement. However the four CDC samples produced malts with variable malt quality. Under the given processing conditions, one barley sample produced quality malt with good extract yield, good soluble protein, good levels of enzymes and low beta-glucan, while the rest of the barley samples produced under-modified malts as indicated by lower friability and higher betaglucan content. On average, CDC s overall malting quality was comparable to the control AC Metcalfe.

10 3. Pilot-malting trials Four pilot malting trials were conducted with CDC barley samples (B , B , B and B ) provided by Richardson International (For barley quality please refer to Table 1). Each of the four pilot malting trials was conducted with a batch size of 60 kg of cleaned barley under the malting conditions detailed in Box 2. Pilot-malting trials were conducted using CMBTC s pilot malting system. Box 2. Malting conditions for processing CDC barley samples (processing conditions for 2008 CDC was included for reference). Crop 2008 Barley ID Pilot Malt ID B PM B PM Steeping B PM B PM B PM Steep temp. ( o C) st Wet Time (hrs) st Dry Time (hrs) nd Wet Time (hrs) nd Dry Time (hrs) rd Wet Time (hrs) Total Steeping Time (hrs) Germination 1st day Germ Temp ( o C) nd day Germ Temp ( o C) rd day Germ Temp ( o C) th day Germ Temp ( o C) Total Germ Time (hrs) Kilning Kilning Time (hrs) Temp( o C) at the end kilning

11 Table 4. Steep-out moisture content, chitting rate and acrospire growth of CDC barley (The trial results of 2008 CDC, CDC Copeland and AC Metcalfe are included in the table for comparison). PM B PM B CDC PM B PM B Mean 2008 CDC Mean of shipment CDC Copeland Mean of shipment AC Metcalfe Steep-out moist, % Chitting rate,% Growth 1/ hrs,% ¼- 1/ ½- 3/ ¾ > Water uptake, chitting and acrospires growth: Under the pilot malting trial conditions given in Box 2, during steeping, all three CDC barley samples showed good water uptake and good chitting (Table 4). The steep-out moisture contents were lower than those obtained in the micro-malting trials, while the chitting rates were comparable to those obtained in the micro-malting trials (Table 2.). During germination the samples all exhibited normal and vigorous growth of acrospires and progress of modification. When compared with 2008 CDC barley, on average CDC barley samples showed faster water uptake and more advanced acrospire growth than the averages of CDC Copeland and AC Metcalfe. Complete malt analysis was carried out for the pilot malting trials, and the analytical results are given in Table 5a. For comparison, the table also includes the average malt analyses of 2008 CDC, AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland malting trials carried out at CMBTC.

12 Table 5a. Analysis of the malts generated from the pilot-malting trials for CDC CDC PM B PM B PM B PM B Mean 2008 CDC Mean of shipmen CDC Copeland Mean of shipmen AC Metcalfe Barley protein, % Malt moisture, % Friability, % Fine-extract, % Coarseextract, % F/C Difference, % Soluble protein, % Total protein, % Kolbach Index, % Beta-Glucan, ppm Viscosity, cps Diastatic power, L α-amylase, D.U Wort colour, ASBC Wort ph Fan, mg/l General modification: Under the given pilot malting trial conditions the malts generated in trials PM-09-37, PM and PM all produced malt with very good modification as indicated by the values of friability, F/C difference, soluble protein content and beta-glucan content (Table 5a), while the malt from trial PM was under-modified as indicated by the lower friability and undesirably higher beta-glucan content.

13 Extract yield and enzyme levels: CDC malts produced in the four pilotmalting trials exhibited very good extract yield and enzyme levels (Table 5a). On average the extract yield was higher than that obtained in the micro-malting trials, while the enzyme levels were lower than the micro-malting malts (Table 3). The extract yield was similar to 2008 malt as was the enzyme levels. When compared with CDC Copeland and AC Metcalfe, on average the extract yield of the CDC was marginally higher than CDC Copeland but similar to AC Metcalfe. The diastatic power of CDC malts was significantly higher than either CDC Copeland or AC Metcalfe, but the alpha-amylase was lower. Soluble protein, FAN and malt colour: CDC malts produced in the pilotmalting trials all developed acceptable levels of soluble protein, FAN and malt color (Table 5). Protein solubilisation for the pilot malting malts was higher than that in the micro-malting trials, while the color was similar to the micro-malting trial malts, and the FAN level was significantly higher than the micro-malting malts. In comparison with 2008 CDC, malts showed significantly higher KI and malt color, and slightly higher FAN level. In comparison with CDC Copeland and AC Metcalfe malts, malts showed higher KI, malt color and FAN level. Beta-glucan content and worth viscosity: On average, CDC malts showed lower beta-glucan content than that obtained in the micro-malting trials, but significantly higher than Copeland and AC Metcalfe, although the average was skewed by the malt from trial PM If trial PM was excluded from the discussion the average beta-glucan content for CDC would have been similar to the controls. For example, trial PM produced well modified malt with very low beta-glucan content. Except for the malt from trial PM , viscosity levels for CDC malts were within the levels required by the breweries (normally expecting viscosity less than 1.50 cps). On average, the viscosity levels were comparable to 2008 CDC, CDC Copeland and AC Metcalfe. Overall performance and malt quality: In the pilot malting trials CDC barley samples did not show any abnormalities during processing. The samples showed good water uptake and good chitting at steep. During germination they showed good acrospire growth and good progress in modification. Except for trial PM-09-50, CDC barley samples produced malts with good quality. The malts showed excellent values of friability and extract yield, good soluble protein and very good enzyme levels. The overall malt quality was comparable to the average of 2008 CDC, as well as AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland malts. It was observed that CDC takes up water faster than AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland, with a tendency to give higher levels of soluble protein.

14 Table 5b. Analysis of the commercial malts for CDC. Technical Report OT OT Barley protein, % Malt moisture, % Friability, % Fine-extract, % Coarse-extract, % F/C Difference, % Soluble protein, % Total protein, % Kolbach Index, % Beta-Glucan, ppm Viscosity, cps Diastatic power, L α-amylase, D.U Wort colour, ASBC Wort ph Fan, mg/l In examining the commercially produced malt samples of CDC (Table 5b) the malting results were comparable to the CMBTC pilot malted samples (Table 5a) with some differences. Again it must be remembered that although these malts were produced in a commercial malthouse they were still one-off trial malting. General modification: OT produced malt with very good modification as indicated by the values of friability, F/C difference, soluble protein content and betaglucan content (Table 5b), while the OT was under-modified as indicated by the lower friability and undesirably higher beta-glucan content. This is similar variation we saw in the pilot malting trials. Extract yield and enzyme levels: Extract yield for OT was similar to that recorded in the pilot malting trials, while Ot exhibited lower extract, again possibly related to under-modification. In the commercial malt OT , the enzymes levels were similar to that recorded in the pilot malting trials. In OT , the DP was much higher while the alpha-amylase was lower. Soluble protein, FAN and malt colour: As with the previous results, OT soluble protein level, FAN level and wort colour were very similar to the pilot malting trials. In OT , the FAN, wort colour and soluble protein levels were lower. Beta-glucan content and worth viscosity: The beta-glucan level in OT was much higher than the pilot malting trials, again related to under-modification during processing. In fact the level is above that specification set by breweries.

15 4. Pilot Brewing Trials Malts produced from the malting trials, as well as four commercial CDC malt samples (from Rahr Malting and Prairie Malting), were pilot brewed in CMBTCs 300L Pilot Brewery. The following is the brewing and fermentation conditions for the brewing trials with CDC sample malts, as well as with the controls. Mash Tun 100% malt brew 40 kg of malt and 125L of water added to mash tun Mash in at 48 C, hold for 30 min Raise to 65 C, hold for 30 min Raise to 76 C Pump over to Lauter Tun Lauter Tun Rest for 5 minutes, vorlauf for 10 minutes Rakes at 20 cm above bottom, on slow for entire lautering 25L underlet 100L sparge water at 75 C Brew Kettle First hop (Nugget) boiled for 90 min 37g Second hop (Mt. Hood) boiled for 5 min 75g Fermentation, aging, filtering and bottling conditions for the brewing trials Cooled to 13.5ºC, pitched with lager yeast at 1.25 million cells per ml Fermented for 7 days, cooled to 1.5 o C and then transferred to storage Stored at -0.5 ºC for 10 days Filtered through a 1 µm pad filter system, carbonated to 2.5 volumes CO 2 Stored 2 days at -2 o C, and packaged Pasteurized to 15 PU

16 The brewing results are given in Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Tables also contain average values for crop AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland trials for comparison. Table 6. Main Brewhouse observations for pilot brewing trials with malt produced in the CMBTC Pilot Malthouse Parameter 2008 PB PM B PB PM B PB PM B Mean of AC Metcalfe CDC Copeland Conversion time (min.) Time to clear (min.) Lautering time (min.) Malt Material Yield (%) Wort ph Wort Colour (SRM) Table 7. Main Brewhouse observations for pilot brewing trials with malt produced commercially. Parameter PB OT PB OT PB OT PB OT Conversion time (min.) Time to clear (min.) Lautering time (min.) Malt Material Yield (%) Wort ph Wort Colour (SRM) In the brewhouse, CDC recorded a longer average conversion time (Table 6 and 7) than both AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland with the 2008 CDC having a significantly longer conversion time than the CDC. Average conversion time of CDC is comparable to the average of CDC Copeland. It was interesting to note that commercially produced malt had a slightly faster conversion time than the pilot malt, probably due to the higher enzyme levels. Conversion time is a metric that is important for the brewer in regards to the economics of his brewhouse. Longer conversion times could translate into higher operating costs in more energy requirement, higher labour costs or decreased capacity. Conversion time is related to the enzyme content of the malt, and can be manipulated by changing malt: water ratio and temperature.

17 Time for wort to clear to less than 100 FTU in lautering was good and was comparable to the averages of CDC Copeland, and was slightly longer than the averages for AC Metcalfe. There was no difference between commercially produced CDC (Table 7) and that produced in the CMBTC pilot malthouse (Table 6). Time required for the wort to clear is a metric that is important for the brewer in regards to the economics of his brewhouse as well as the quality of the finished beer. Most brewers want clear wort, it provides better quality beer and also allows for better capacity utilization in fermentation. The time therefore to obtain wort that is clear (less than 100 FTU) is therefore related to capacity and manpower utilization. Average lautering time for CDC was slightly shorter than both CDC Copeland and AC Metcalfe averages. Time to complete the runoff is a metric that is important for the brewer in regards to the economics of his brewhouse. Once again no differences were noted between the commercially produced malt and the pilot malt. Longer times could translate into higher operating costs in more energy requirement, higher labour costs or decreased capacity. Runoff time is related to the beta-glucan content of the malt as well as the friability and milling of the malt. Average Malt Material Yield for CDC was also good, higher than the AC Metcalfe control average but lower than the CDC Copeland average. Brewhouse Yield shows what percentage of the extract that was recovered into the cast wort. It is a measure of how easily the extract is recovered from the malt. Brewhouse material efficiency and also is a metric to determine the ease of obtaining that extract from the malt. Commercially produced malt recorded lower yields, probably due to higher betaglucan content, which hindered extract recovery when compared to the pilot malt. Wort clarity and break in the wort kettle was within specification comparable to the controls. Wort clarity and good protein precipitation is related to improved colloidal stability of the final product. CDC from crop year had a wort colour higher than both AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland average. However, 2008 CDC wort colour was lower than both AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland average. Most international brewers are looking for a lower pale colour to be derived from the malt, so the lower the better. The ph values were typical for of the CDC wort sample, on the higher end of the acceptable range, and comparable to both CDC Copeland and AC Metcalfe control samples. Wort produced from the commercial malt OT has a significantly higher ph than any other samples. Wort ph is related to beer flavour stability, the higher the ph the more flavour stable the beer is through time. However, the ph cannot be too high or else the possibility of flavour changes and microbiological infection can occur. Wort taste was acceptable. This is a quick test to look for off-flavours. The wort should be malty, sweet with no off-flavours.

18 Table 8. Wort sugar concentration for the pilot brewing trials (mg/l) with malt produced in the CMBTC Pilot Malthouse. Wort Sugar 2008 PB PM B PB PM B PB PM B Mean of AC Metcalfe CDC Copeland Maltotetrose Maltotriose Maltose Glucose Fructose Table 9. Wort sugar concentration for the pilot brewing trials (mg/l) pilot brewing trials with malt produced commercially. Wort Sugar PB OT PB OT PB OT PB OT Mean of AC Metcalfe CDC Copeland Maltotetrose Maltotriose Maltose Glucose Fructose A normal wort sugar spectrum was recorded for CDC (Table 8 and 9), comparable to the controls. CDC had slightly higher levels of Maltotriose and Maltose than the averages of CDC Copeland and AC Metcalfe. Additionally commercial malt made from CDC had slightly lower levels of maltose and glucose than the pilot malt. In the lauter tun normal operating conditions were recorded for CDC. Runoff turbidity for CDC was within the normal range for Canadian two-rowed malts. Clarity below 100 FTU was obtained in a normal time of 10 minutes. The Wort clarity curve recorded was normal. Runoff specific gravity profiles as well as Runoff lautertun flowmeter profiles for CDC were within normal tolerance for Canadian two-row malt, and comparable to the control AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland samples.

19 Parameter Attenuation Limit (%) Table 10. Fermentation observations for the brewing trials 2008 PB PM B PB PM B PB PM B CMBTC Pilot Malts PB PB OT PB OT PB OT PB OT Commercial Malts Mean of AC Metcalfe CDC Copeland The average fermentability of the worts produced from CDC (Table 10) was higher than either of the controls, however the fermentability of the commercially produced malt was less than the pilot produced malt. Fermentability is important in that it is a measure of the amount of beer that can be produced from the original malt. The higher the fermentability the better, more beer volume can be produced. Table 11. Final beer analysis for the brewing trials Parameter Apparent Ext. (Plato) Real Ext. (Plato) Alcohol (v/v %) Color (ASBC) ph Foam (Nibem) Initial Turbidity (FTU) Chill Turbidity (FTU) 24 Hr 2008 PB PM B PB PM B CMBTC Pilot Malts PB OT PB OT Commercial Malts PB OT Mean of AC Metcalfe CDC Copeland CDC produced beers with good quality (Table 11). Beers produced from CDC offered slightly higher foam values compared to the controls. Alcohol and apparent extract were good and comparable or higher than AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland controls. The initial and chill turbidity for CDC produced beers were good, although higher than the controls, indicating good physical and colloidal stability. Only one CDC sample (PB-10-32) had unusually high turbidity readings. When beers produced from the commercial CDC malts were compared to the beers from pilot malts, several difference were noted. Beers produced from commercial malts

20 exhibited higher RE/AE, lower alcohol (related to lower fermentability), higher colour, higher ph, lower foam stability and poorer forced physical stability results. In terms of sensory, CDC beer received somewhat higher marks than the control AC Metcalfe and CDC Copeland, and was rated as a normal good beer with no defects and some good characteristics. CDC had a very good appearance with yellow-golden colour, clear, clean and good foam. For more information, please contact CMBTC: Rob McCaig, Managing Director and Director of Brewing Tel: (204) Yueshu Li, Director of Malting Technology Tel: (204) Fax Website site